These days, with a crisis atmosphere growing in the Persian Gulf, a little history lesson about the United States and Iran might be just what the
doctor ordered. Here, then, are a few high- (or low-) lights from their relationship over the last half-century-plus:

Summer 1953: The Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence hatch a plot for a coup that overthrows a democratically elected government in
Iran intent on nationalizing that country's oil industry. In its place, they put an autocrat, the young Shah of Iran, and his soon-to-be feared
secret police.

He runs the country as his repressive fiefdom for a quarter-century, becoming Washington's "bulwark" in the Persian Gulf –
until overthrown in 1979 by a home-grown revolutionary movement, which ushers in the rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the mullahs. While
Khomeini & Co were hardly Washington's men, thanks to that 1953 coup they were, in a sense, its own political offspring.

In other words, the fatal decision to overthrow a popular democratic government shaped the Iranian world Washington now loathes, and even then oil was
at the bottom of things.

Here is some “irony” to think about:

1967: Under the US "Atoms for Peace" program, started in the 1950s by president Dwight D Eisenhower, the shah is allowed to buy a
five-megawatt, light-water type research reactor for Tehran (which - call it irony - is still playing a role in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear
program).

So we see what looks like the “West” paying double for something they initiated.
But is it really something they will actually collect “double-up” with a new regime in place ?

AND soon after:

September 1980: Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein launches a war of aggression against Khomeini's Iran. In the early 1980s, he becomes Washington's
man, our "bulwark" in the Persian Gulf, and we offer him our hand - and also "detailed information" on Iranian deployments and tactical planning
that help him use his chemical weapons more effectively against the Iranian military.

So, after a failed attempt to re-secure Iran, The “West” decides to “destroy” Iraq as punishment ?
Iran seems to be a tough nut to crack. Military actions could prove to be difficult.

Perhaps TPTB will re-instate The Shah ?

Perhaps TPTB are planning a "return ticket" for the 1953 coup.

With many frozen assets from the 70's still in the deep freeze as well as new sanctions, the money is available, at Iran's expense of course !

The old regimes started in the 600's and have been "on hold" since 1979.

The Shah's eldest son Reza Pahlavi is the Prince Regent, meaning if the Peacock Throne was ever
restored he would be the one in line for it.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, is due to implement a major economic plan to privatize its oil refineries in line with its
privatization scheme.

Managing-Director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) Alireza Zeiqami announced that seven of the country's
nine oil refineries will be ceded to the private sector by the end of the current Iranian year (March 2012).

"National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company and its subsidiaries will become privatized. At least 11 companies and refineries will cede
their shares to the private sector later this year," he stated.

Zeiqami, who is also deputy oil minister, said that domestic and foreign investors can purchase the shares of the refineries through
the Privatization Organization of Iran.

Article 44 of the Iranian Constitution stipulates that the country's economic system shall be based on public, cooperative and private sectors.

All large-scale industries, mother industries, foreign trade, large mines, banking, insurance, power supply, dams and large irrigation channels, radio
and television, post, telegraph and telephone, aviation, shipping, roads, rails, refineries and the like are public property and under the guidance of
the government.

A 2004 amendment to the Article, however, has set in motion a ten-year plan to privatize eighty percent of Iran's state-owned assets.

If TPTB replace their current "regime" in Iran to suit a new "approved" agenda,

a new "regime" could transfer even more wealth away from the citizens.

Originally posted by theBigToe
The U.S. can obliterate Iran (no nuclear weapons needed).

Why do you dislike Iran so much? What purpose would it serve to you if Iran was obliterated?

I dont want Iran obliterated. I want the people in power who are in control of that button which holds back the most hideous weapon ever created to be
obliterated before they bring our species to the brink of extermination.

If I remember correctly was there not an article on Iran here somewhere on ATS the Russia and China said any attack on Iran would be an attack on
them? Or did they change their minds?

Didnt see your response sorry.

China and Russia will never go to war with the U.S. These countries are every bit as much an ally of each other as the rest of the civilized world.
These two countries are more greedy then the U.S.A. will ever be. They are in a position to demand exactly what theyre doing to Iran right now with
the EU/UN oil embargo's, which is demanding discounted oil on sanctioned states. They provide these states with outdated Soviet technology that they
think builds up their outdated armies and then they make trillions sitting back and laughing at both them and the West.

Theyre not going to intervene in Iran because the oil in Iran will still be controlled and they will still have as much access to it in the Wests
possession as they would in Irans. China and Russia know full well what Islam mandates, and theyre in the same boat as the West. Theyll be used by the
Iranians until theyre no longer needed and Iran thinks it can win and make the world an Islamic world.

Good points about the Karma of the U.S. strategy on Iran over the past half century. Ron Paul has tried to point out to the masses in the U.S. that
foreign policies often times have long-term effects that are opposite the intended short-term goal of the original policy. He gets criticized for
questioning the arrogant, short-sighted, approach to dealing with Iraq, Iran and other countries in that region.

I wonder how our perspective will change on Cuba in fifty years. If we get rid of the Castro brothers and prop up a democratic free-market system,
will we be complaining in 2051 that American jobs are being outsourced to Cuba and then place sanctions on Cuba to restrict their ability to have a
successful free market?

Yes it will, just not the public. It will benefit the corporations that control our government 100%. War is the best form of money laundering
and without it the banking cartels cannot complete their cycle of debt imprisonment of the public.

To the people saying that the US can destroy Iran no problems: Grow up.

Yes it will, just not the public. It will benefit the corporations that control our government 100%. War is the best form of money laundering
and without it the banking cartels cannot complete their cycle of debt imprisonment of the public.

To the people saying that the US can destroy Iran no problems: Grow up.

To clarify, I was referring to an attack to stop the nuke program.
Like a single bombing attack, not an invasion.

Quote from OP:

Attacking and stopping Iran’s nuke program by itself (assuming it really exists) WILL NOT create a financial benefit for the “West” !!

Yes, the gain will come later, but they need to get financial control first.

Oil is not the only issue in Iran, Natural Gas prices has been rising consistently too, and Iran has some of the richest reserves of that in the
world. The way I look at it, if Iran is forced into a conflict, and knocked back into feudalism, the people will not be using as much of those
resources and they will be ripe for exploitation by richer nations able to pay for them without subsidies. As the above report from the World Bank
clearly states, the main problem that other producers and refiners have with Iran is that they are not squeezing their people and therefore not
getting 'top dollar'....

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.